Shri. Parashuram Channappa Shapurkar, alias Kapurkar, 46y, business, R/o. Medargalli, Haliyal,U.K. vs Smt. Parvati Kom. Somning Pakari, 56y, agriculture, R/o. Chibbalgeri village, Tq. Haliyal, U.K. — 64/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o. 7R. 1. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK510004832023
Next Hearing
26th March 2026
Filing Number
64/2023
Filing Date
05-06-2023
Registration No
64/2023
Registration Date
05-06-2023
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL
Judge
525-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HALIYAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri. Parashuram Channappa Shapurkar, alias Kapurkar, 46y, business, R/o. Medargalli, Haliyal,U.K.
Adv. PRAKASH BASAPPA ANGADI
Respondent(s)
Smt. Parvati Kom. Somning Pakari, 56y, agriculture, R/o. Chibbalgeri village, Tq. Haliyal, U.K.
Hearing History
Judge: 525-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HALIYAL
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
ISSUES
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 19-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 30-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 15-12-2025 | ISSUES |
Interim Orders
Summary Case: O.S.64/2023 - Cross-examination of PW 1 Outcome: The cross-examination of Plaintiff's Witness 1 was completed on 06-03-2026. The witness was extensively questioned by the Defendant's counsel regarding discrepancies in documents, name variations (surname listed as both "Shapurkaram" and "Kapurkaram" in different records), and allegations of fabricated evidence and false testimony to wrongfully claim property. The court found no further examination needed and marked the cross-examination as concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Case: O.S.64/2023 - Cross-examination of PW 1 Outcome: The cross-examination of Plaintiff's Witness 1 was completed on 06-03-2026. The witness was extensively questioned by the Defendant's counsel regarding discrepancies in documents, name variations (surname listed as both "Shapurkaram" and "Kapurkaram" in different records), and allegations of fabricated evidence and false testimony to wrongfully claim property. The court found no further examination needed and marked the cross-examination as concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts